Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
15 - Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2019
Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Using semi-structured interviews in the Foothills Parklands Natural Region of Alberta, we explore the meanings of coexistence with coyotes. Within our case study we examine the worldviews defining a spectrum of treatment of coyotes. The continuum extends from: adoration (deep love and respect) to admiration (respect and warm approval), acceptance (appropriate within the ecosystem), ambivalence (mixed feelings, contradictory ideas – neutral), aversion (strong dislike or disinclination), antagonism (active hostility or opposition) to the extreme of annihilation (destroy completely – kill). The disparity in treatment of coyotes we observed was not explained simply as an urban versus rural dichotomy. Yet we document an emergent discourse described as an urban value landscape transgressing the agricultural one, undermining long-held practices of antagonistic killing and annihilation. We explore the experiences that underlie anti-killing sentiments and how understanding these may improve education, support management and inform policy change.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human–Wildlife InteractionsTurning Conflict into Coexistence, pp. 311 - 334Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
15.5 References
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2012). Alberta Guide to Hunting Regulations. Available from www.albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/gameregs.html (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Alberta Wildlife Act. (2014). Available from www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1997_143.pdf (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Alexander, S. M. & Draper, D. L. (2017). Field notes. Foothills Coyote Initiative. Available from www.ucaglary.ca/canid-lab (accessed November 2018).Google Scholar
Alexander, S. M. & Quinn, M. S. (2011). Coyote (Canis latrans) interactions with humans and pets reported in the Canadian print media (1995–2010). Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(5), 345–59.Google Scholar
Alexander, S. M. & Quinn, M. S. (2012). Portrayal of interactions between humans and coyotes (Canis latrans): Content analysis of Canadian print media (1998–2010). Cities and the Environment (CATE), 4(1), art. 9.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M. (2013). Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischoff, B. & Read, D. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? Risk Analysis, 14(6), 959–70.Google Scholar
Brook, R., Cattet, M., Darimont, C., Paquet, P. & Proulx, G. (2015). Maintaining ethical standards during a conservation crisis. Journal of Canadian Wildlife Biology & Management, 4(1), 72–9.Google Scholar
Canadian Wildlife Act. (2014). Available from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-9/ (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
CBC News, Calgary. (2013). Calgary’s population hits 1.15M people. CBC News, Calgary, 25 July. Available from www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-s-population-hits-1-15m-people-1.1385386 (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Chowdhury, P. D., Haque, C. E. & Driedger, S. M. (2012). Public versus expert knowledge and perceptions of climate change-induced heat wave risk: A modified mental model approach. Journal of Risk Research, 15(2), 149–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, T. (1996). In Place, Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1872).The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animal, 1st edn. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dubois, A., Fenwik, N., Ryan, E., Baker, L., Baker, S., Beausoleil, N., Carter, S., Cartwright, B., Costa, F., Draper, C., Griffin, J., Grogan, A., Howald, G., Jones, B., Littin, K., Lombard, A., Mellor, D. Ramp, D., Schuppli, A. & Fraser, D. (2017). International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology, 31(4), 753–60.Google Scholar
Edmonton Journal. (2015a). Hunters, conservationists square off over coyote hunt. Edmonton Journal, 8 January. Available from http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/hunters-conservationists-square-off-over-coyote-hunt (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar
Edmonton Journal. (2015b). Debate over coyote hunts runs hot. Edmonton Journal, 30 January. Available from www.edmontonjournal.com/Debate+over+coyote+hunts+runs/10775509/story.html (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar
Fox, C. H. & Papouchis, C. M. (2005). Coyotes in Our Midst: Coexisting with an Adaptable and Resilient Carnivore. Sacramento, CA: Animal Protection Institute.Google Scholar
Havorka, A. (2016). Animal geographies 1: Globalizing and decolonizing. Progress in Geography, 41(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. (2008). Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33, 5–11.Google Scholar
Jabbour, R., Zwickle, S., Gallandt, E. R., McPhee, K. E., Wilson, R. S. & Doohan, D. (2014). Mental models of organic weed management: Comparisons of New England US farmer and expert models. Renewable Agriculture & Food Systems, 29(4), 319–33.Google Scholar
Joyce, C. (2010). Belief in climate change hinges on worldview. NPR, 23 February. Available from www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307 (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar
Koltko-Rivera, M. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3–58.Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Lane, P. W., Westgate, M. J., Crane, M., Michael, D., Okada, S. & Barton, P. S. (2014). An empirical assessment of the focal species hypothesis. Conservation Biology, 28(6), 1594–1603.Google Scholar
Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E. & Andersen, R. (2001). Predators and people: Conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Animal Conservation, 4, 345–9.Google Scholar
Lorimer, J. (2015). Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation after Nature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lukasik, V. M. & Alexander, S. M. (2012). Spatial and temporal variation of coyote (Canis latrans) diet in Calgary, Alberta. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 4(1), art. 8.Google Scholar
McManus, J. S., Dickman, A. J., Gaynor, D., Smutts, B. H. & McDonald, D. W. (2015). Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms. Oryx, 49(4), 687–95.Google Scholar
Miller, B., Reading, R., Strittholt, J., Carroll, C., Noss, R., Soulé, M., Sanchez, O., Terborgh, J., Brightsmith, D., Cheeseman, T. & Foreman, D. (1998). Using focal species in the design of nature reserve networks. Wild Earth Special Issues, Winter 1998/9, 81–92.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. L. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Philo, C. & Wilbert, C. (2000). Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human–Animal Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A. J., Macdonald, D. W., Marvin, G., Redpath, S., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Zimmerman, A. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 513–23.Google Scholar
Proctor, J. D. (1998). The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(3), 352–76.Google Scholar
Prouxl, G. & Rodtka, D. (2015). Predator bounties in western Canada cause animal suffering and compromise wildlife conservation efforts. Animals, 5(4), 1034–46.Google Scholar
Rust, N., Abrams, A., Challender, D., Chapron, G., Ghoddousi, A., Glikman, J. A., Gowan, C., Hughes, C., Rastogi, A., Said, A., Sutton, A., Taylor, N., Thomas, S., Unnikrishnan, H., Webber, A., Wordingham, G. & Hill, C. (2017). Quantity does not always mean quality: The importance of qualitative social science in conservation research. Society & Natural Resources, 30(10), 1304–10.Google Scholar
Sponarski, C., Semeniuk, C., Glikman, J. A., Bath, A. & Musiani, M. (2013). Heterogeneity among rural resident attitudes toward wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 18, 239–48.Google Scholar
Sponarski, C., Vaske, J. & Bath, A. (2015). The role of cognitions and emotions in human–coyote interactions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(3), 238–54.Google Scholar
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Town of Cochrane. (2014). Cochrane growth rate up. Available from www.cochrane.ca/ (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Treves, A. & Bruskotter, J. T. (2014). Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science, 344(6183), 476–7.Google Scholar
Urbanik, J. (2012). Placing Animals: An Introduction to the Geography of Human–Animal Relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. S., Tucker, M., Hooker, N. H., LeJeune, J. T. & Doonan, D. (2008). Perceptions and beliefs about weed management: Perspectives of Ohio grain and produce farmers. Weed Technology, 22, 339–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaksek, M. & Arvai, J. L. (2004). Toward improved communication about wildland fire: Mental models research to identify information needs for natural resource management. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1503–14.Google Scholar